Lucy Letby. Why do some people only read headlines?

[skyfirechesnut]

I was at work today and someone says so Lucy letby is innocent now. They have just gone with the media headlines. Instead of researching.

Sorry for the fail link but this is quite a good article below on the current state of things. The author has attended all trials and listened to appeals and conferences.

I also don't understand people who say she was scapegoated. If people follow the Thirwall enquiry this is far from the case. She was totally protected, her parents calling up, being in meetings, dictating apologies. It beggars belief.

I can somewhat understand people saying she is innocent based on medical evidence after the press conference but even that is nothing new.

You can't say my expert is better than yours.

Also people seem to think it was all Dewi Evans for the prosecution it wasn't. There was Dr Bohin, Prof Arthurs , Prof Hindnarsh and Dr Mar etc.

That is without the Doctor colleagues if you want to dispute them.

Then they new defence have changed ideas from the conference they had in December.

They are also not totally impartial.
It isn't as simple as the headlines.

Here is the article.

archive.ph/NYg7U

@Oftenaddled given the strict frame of reference in Thirlwall, and strong arming from the trust that’s already been reported (nurses being told testifying for Letby could harm their careers) the nurse’s statements that Thirlwall released last night were extremely pro Letby. As was Nurse Joanne Williams in court, when it was her word vs Dr Jayaram’s. Unfortunately nurse’s words don’t seem to carry as much weight as those from the “clever doctors” for some reason.

Other than Sandie Bohin, who has now had 8 families submit a formal complaint to the GMC wrt her care of their children, none of the expert witnesses are neonatologists afair.

None of the prosecution team are global experts in neonatology and the prosecution team did not review the entire body of case notes as did the defence panel - they were merely sent selected aspects and asked to comment on Evans’ findings.

The problem for the prosecution now is not only does the defence panel massively outgun them, the central core of their arguments rests on Evans’s findings - which have now been discredited.

How many of them would return to defend their claims? I’d be surprised if many of them did.

But either way this still goes back to my point that until all of this is properly tested then we can't know for sure that it's just a typo, or whether their finding for baby 9/I might have been based on incomplete information about what happened during the last few days of her life.

Proper testing would be welcomed, I think most people are simply pointing out that for whatever reason this was not done in the way it should have been for this conviction. Is Letby guilty anyway? Obviously in law she is, currently. But it's far from clear now that the evidence against her was medically valid. I'm not even sure why this is controversial unless you have some sort of ideological belief that the police, COCH and court system are above criticism. So many problems have been uncovered since reporting restrictions were lifted. You don't normally get experts from multiple different fields lining up to point this out and I do find it strange that anyone would be so invested in Letby's guilt that they'd want to gloss over that. These aren't minor technicalities against a picture of overwhelming guilt. There are massive holes in every part of that picture and I can't understand why anyone thinks that's acceptable. We should all be invested in having a fair justice system. If that process happens and the evidence actually shows Letby is guilty, then I would absolutely support that with no issues or qualms.

@1WanderingWomble exactly this.

The problem for the prosecution now is not only does the defence panel massively outgun them, the central core of their arguments rests on Evans’s findings - which have now been discredited.

I think this is the whole issue in a nutshell. It seems incredibly blatant that Evans decided his job was to find murders and fit the evidence to that. Apparently it wasn't an issue for him to reclassify an incident from suspicious to nonsuspicious if Letby was found not to be on shift, and to change his mind about an 'incriminating' x-ray taken before she'd had any contact with one of the babies. In what world is that OK or normal? His entire modus apparandi has been laid bare by these discoveries and it's a joke, frankly.

Modus operandi, sorry. I knew that looked odd 😄

Did that really happen? What is the justice system coming to.

Have a listen to John Sweeney’s podcast “Was There Ever A Crime?” and prepare to be very annoyed indeed.

For those that can get passed the platform snobbery. I am not a twitter fan myself. So appreciate not wanting to link.

But interesting information from this woman.

twitter.com/DebRoberts22249/article/1891636383057412362

From nurse Lisa Walker. Telling a nurse off for shouting for help.

Always the hero wise one.

Thats an aside from hoping a 25 weeker would stabilise.

And yes yes this doesn't make her guilty in isolation. Crap nurse though and far from average as some would have us believe.

You can’t seriously be quoting @DebRoberts lulz she’s just a troll.

She was relatively young at the time but apparently well respected.

Can you highlight which of her practices you feel were “crap”.

There's no evidence Letby was the nurse at the 25 weeker's bedside at all - she has no memory of it, Jayaram didn't mention it for more than a year, and the swipe card data was reversed for the first trial, showing the child's nurse leaving when she was actually coming back from her break. That whole charge is extremely problematic.

This was meant to be a reply to the post quoted below @Mirabai 's - sorry for any confusion.

I have already.

So many. Many nurses say they think its bad practice to allow a 25 weeker to self correct.

I almost fell off my chair! Deb Roberts!! 🤣

@Oftenaddled

Convenient she doesn't remember. She even said herself she was waiting to see if self corrected.

Doesn't make what she says any less valid.

For example doctors saying shoo had a conflict of interest. The lack of peer review. That he ignored some of the original research that wasn't his own. All to fit his narrative.

The only reason there is to believe Letby was even in the room that night is the ever changing word of Dr Jayaram who didn’t tell anyone about this event, not a soul, not the other doctors, not the managers, not his dear diary, certainly not the police, for 13 months. Nurse Williams disagrees with his testimony and he changed it several times over the years. Personally I do not buy his version of events. For the record, neither does major UK whistleblower charity Compassion in Care who refuse to accept that he was a whistleblower, seeing “red flags” in his version of events. Incidentally even the CoA said his testimony was unreliable and they certainly weren’t biased towards Letby!

I linked to this in my op but here it is again: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/01/lucy-letby-whistleblowers-red-flags-charity-testimony/

She said this is the only reason why one would wait. Not that she did so in this instance. Again, there is zero reason to believe this event even happened as he describes it, let alone that it was Letby who was involved. Even he wasn’t sure at first, though strangely he became more sure as the years passed and his story changed.

She said that if the scenario described happened, that's what she would have been doing.

Lee's work was published in a peer reviewed journal which means that it was peer reviewed before being accepted.

Why do you think it wasn't peer reviewed?

Exactly

Read the link if you can. Appreciate you may not want to as its x.

I’m extremely familiar with Deb Roberts. I think we both are, if that wasn’t clear. Whoever “Deb Roberts” is they are NOT a reliable source. Anytime anyone challenges them with facts they report to 4chan level bullying. A truly vile troll. I thought you hit the depths with Hull, but this is worse.

So: that twitter user is patching together internet rumours and misconceptions from various sources.

Just one:

Lee obviously didn't ask the New Yorker to remove his name since it is back in the article now. The New Yorker is clear that it was changed at the request of the court previously.